The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant carried out one “the automatic production facility for stuffed capital reduction” (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) which is the object of the victim’s mortgage from a factory D (hereinafter “the instant factory”) in Gyeonggi-gu, the Gyeonggi-si, to a factory located in the Gyeong-gu, Gyeonggi-do, which is the object of the victim’s mortgage.

Since the Defendant’s act constitutes a “transfer” of movable property, which is the object of a mortgage under Article 60 of the Act on Mortgage on Factories and Mining Foundations (hereinafter “factory Mortgage Act”), the Defendant’s act of obstructing the exercise of rights constitutes an unlawful act of obstructing the exercise of rights and violating the Factory Mortgage Act on the ground that the Defendant temporarily leased the instant machinery to I, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that it was unlawful.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor added Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act to “Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act” of the applicable law for the first time in the trial. Of the facts charged, “The Defendant appealed on February 21, 2014 by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Registration of Fraud and Real Estate under the Name of Persons with Actual Right to Real Estate, but dismissed the appeal from the Suwon Methods Board on November 13, 2014, and the final appeal is still pending on November 17, 2014.

“The Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment on February 21, 2014 for a violation of the Act on the Registration of Fraud and the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name in the Loan Support for Suwon Friwon,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 12, 2015.

“A request for permission for amendments to Bill of Indictment was made.”

However, the judgment of the court cannot be maintained as the case is changed due to the permission of modification of the bill of amendment.

3. Despite the grounds for ex officio reversal of the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to a trial by this Court. Accordingly, this is examined.

A. Part 1 of the fact that interferes with the exercise of rights is erroneous as to the crime of interference with the exercise of rights.